You are here: / Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL)
, ,

THE BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank in this foreclosure action did not demonstrate strict compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304. The bank’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted:

No evidence that the RPAPL 1304 notice was mailed by certified mail to the defendant at the subject property was provided, and the affidavit of a document control officer of the plaintiff’s loan servicer submitted by the plaintiff failed to describe the procedures in place designed to ensure that RPAPL 1304 notices are properly addressed and mailed by both certified and first-class mail … . Since the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of actual mailing of the RPAPL 1304 notice by certified mail to the defendant at the subject property, “or proof of a standard office mailing procedure designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed, sworn to by someone with personal knowledge of the procedure,” the plaintiff failed to establish its strict compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Sae Young Min, 2022 NY Slip Op 00393, Second Dept 1-26-22

 

, , ,

SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT SIGNATURES ON THE NOTE AND DEFENDANTS’ DENIAL OF RECEIPT OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE DID NOT RAISE QUESTIONS OF FACT; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should have been granted. Slightly different signatures on the note and defendants’ denial of receipt of the RPAPL 1304 notice did not raise questions of fact:

… [U]nder the circumstances of this case, the fact that the plaintiff submitted a copy of the consolidated note that contained slightly different signatures of the defendants than the copy appended to the CEMA [consolidation, extension, and modification agreement], did not provide a sufficient basis to deny the plaintiff’s motion … . The defendants do not dispute that they signed the consolidated notes, including the one under which the plaintiff wished to proceed, nor do they claim that there were any differences in the terms of the notes … . Furthermore, the defendants’ mere denial of receipt of the RPAPL 1304 notices was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact warranting denial of the motion … . Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy. v Theagene, 2022 NY Slip Op 00465, Second Dept 1-26-22

 

, ,

THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the bank did not demonstrate compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 in this foreclosure action:

Although the envelope has “Wells Fargo Home Mortgage” printed on it, there is no visible sender address. The envelope has the name “Shields” [defendant] hand-written in the top right corner. The envelope is further marked “return to sender illegible unable to forward” by the United States Post Office. The plaintiff also provided a copy of a certified mail return receipt card addressed to both of the defendants at the subject property’s address. This card is neither signed by a recipient nor postmarked. In addition, the plaintiff provided a certified manifest demonstrating proof of filing pursuant to RPAPL 1306, which only refers to a purported mailing to Shields. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to eliminate questions of fact as to whether notices were sent to both defendants in compliance with RPAPL 1304, and whether the notices were received. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Shields, 2022 NY Slip Op 00462, Second Dept 1-26-22

 

,

PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS OWN ADJOINING LOTS ORIGINALLY CONVEYED BY THE SAME GRANTOR WITH A RESTRICTION ALLOWING ONLY ONE RESIDENCE PER LOT; PLAINTIFF HAD THE REQUISITE “VERTICAL PRIVITY” TO ENFORCE THE RESTRICTION WHEN DEFENDANTS SOUGHT TO SUBDIVIDE THEIR LOT; DEFENDANTS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COVENANT WAS UNENFORCEABLE DUE TO RPAPL 1951 BECAUSE THE AREA HAD CHANGED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined: (1) plaintiff had “vertical privity” which allowed plaintiff to enforce a covenant in the deed from the original grantor of both plaintiff’s and defendants’ neighboring lots; and (2) defendants raised a triable issue of fact whether the covenant was unenforceable pursuant to RPAPL 1951 due to changes in the area. The covenant restricted each lot one residence. Defendants sough to subdivide their lot:

… [P]laintiff has the requisite vertical privity to enforce the restrictive covenants … . The plaintiff derived title to Lot 5 from the grantor, who subdivided the Lilac Farm subdivision. By deed dated June 4, 1929, the grantor burdened Lot 6, the property conveyed to the defendants’ predecessor in title, by subjecting the conveyance to the restrictive covenants in question, and which accrued to the benefit of the property retained by the grantor, including Lot 5, which was conveyed to the plaintiff’s predecessors in title by deed dated September 20, 1929. The defendants do not allege that the succession of conveyances from the grantor to the plaintiff was not continuous and lawful. Therefore, the plaintiff has the requisite vertical privity and did not need to demonstrate a common plan or scheme for the entire subdivision … . …

… [T]he defendants raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the restrictive covenant prohibiting subdivision of the parcel is unenforceable pursuant to RPAPL 1951 due to changes in the area since the imposition of such covenant … . Shehan v Commisso, 2022 NY Slip Op 00328, Second Dept 1-19-22

 

, ,

THE INCLUSION OF OTHER MATERIAL IN THE ENVELOPE CONTAINING THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION IS A DEFENSE WHICH CAN BE RAISED AT ANY TIME AND WHICH WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s failure to comply with RPAPL 1304 is a defense to a foreclosure action which can be raised at any time. Here the inclusion of other material in the envelope containing the RPAPL 1304 warranted summary judgment in favor of defendants:

Although the defendants failed to oppose the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, for summary judgment and for an order of reference on the ground that the plaintiff did not comply with RPAPL 1304, “failure to comply with RPAPL 1304 is a defense that may be raised at any time prior to the entry of judgment of foreclosure and sale” … . Here, the issue was raised before the entry of judgment of foreclosure and sale. Thus, the issue of compliance with RPAPL 1304 was properly before the Supreme Court.

The defendants established that the plaintiff failed to strictly comply with RPAPL 1304, on the ground that additional material was sent in the same envelope as the 90-day notice required by RPAPL 1304 … . Citimortgage, Inc. v Dente, 2021 NY Slip Op 07538, Second Dept 12-29-21

Similar issue and result in Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v DeFeo, 2021 NY Slip Op 07577, Second Dept 12-29-21

 

, ,

THE AFFIDAVIT SUPPORTING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS OFFERED BY THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING DID NOT LAY A SUFFICIENT EVIDENTIARY FOUNDATION FOR THE RECORDS, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determine the evidentiary foundation for the business records submitted by plaintiff bank (JPMorgan) in this foreclosure action was inadequate:

JPMorgan submitted, among other things, the affidavit of Nathan Abelin, a document management specialist for FNMA’s loan servicer, Seturus, Inc. (hereinafter Seturus), who, based upon his review of business records, attested to the defendant’s default in payment, JPMorgan’s standing to commence the action, and JPMorgan’s compliance with RPAPL 1304. Although Abelin averred that he was personally familiar with Seturus’s record-keeping practices and procedures, the business records he relied upon and attached to the affidavit were created by JPMorgan and another entity. Abelin failed to lay a proper foundation for these records because he did not aver either that he had personal knowledge of those entities’ business practices and procedures, or that the records “were incorporated into [Seturus’s] own records and routinely relied upon by [Seturus] in its own business”… . Accordingly, Abelin’s affidavit constituted inadmissible hearsay and lacked probative value … . Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Allanah, 2021 NY Slip Op 07269, Second Dept 12-22-21

 

,

IN A FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, THE REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304 NOTICE MUST BE SENT TO THE BORROWER IN A SEPARATE ENVELOPE; HERE OTHER NOTICES WERE INCLUDED IN THE ENVELOPE ALONG WITH THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Duffy, determined, in a foreclosure action, the requirement that the RPAPL 1304 notice be sent to the borrower “in a separate envelope from any other mailing or notice” must be strictly complied. Because other notices were included in the same envelope, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly granted:

… [T]he plaintiff acknowledged that the envelope that it sent to the defendants, which contained the requisite notice under RPAPL 1304, also included other information in two notices pertaining to the rights of a debtor in bankruptcy and in military service. Since the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that it strictly complied with the requirements of RPAPL 1304, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment … . … [O]n his cross motion, [defendant] established his … entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint … by showing that the plaintiff failed to comply with RPAPL 1304 when it sent additional material in the same envelope as the requisite notice under RPAPL 1304. Bank of Am., N.A. v Kessler, 2021 NY Slip Op 06979, Second Dept 12-15-21

 

, ,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANK’S PROOF OF MAILING THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the bank’s proof that the RPAPL 1304 notice was properly mialed to the defendant was insufficient:

… [A]lthough Gonzales [an employee of plaintiff Wilmington’s loan servicer] stated in her affidavit that RPAPL 1304 notices were mailed by certified and first-class mail, and attached copies of those notices, Wilmington failed to attach any documents showing that the mailings actually happened … . Further, Gonzales did not aver that she had personal knowledge of the purported mailings, and did not describe any standard office procedure designed to ensure that notices are properly addressed and mailed … . Accordingly, Wilmington failed to establish, prima facie, compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Novis, 2021 NY Slip Op 06720, Second Dept 12-1-21

 

, ,

IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, PLAINTIFF BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; NO FOUNDATION FOR THE SUBMITTED BUSINESS RECORDS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s summary judgment motion in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. Strict compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 was not demonstrated with admissible evidence:

… [I]n support of its motion Bayview [plaintiff, successor-in-interest to the original plaintiff, Bank of America (BoA)] submitted the affidavit of Nicole Currey, a supervisor for Bayview, who attached to her affidavit copies of various documents generated by nonparty Walz Group, Inc. (hereinafter Walz), to establish compliance with the mailing requirements of RPAPL 1304. However, Currey failed to address the nature of the relationship between Walz and BoA , and Bayview’s submissions were insufficient to establish a foundation for the admission of the business records relied upon by Bayview to establish compliance with RPAPL 1304 … . Therefore, Bayview failed to demonstrate, prima facie, its strict compliance with the 90-day notice requirement of RPAPL 1304 … . Bank of Am., N.A. v Evanson, 2021 NY Slip Op 06601, Second Dept 11-24-21

 

, ,

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 CAN BE RAISED AT ANY TIME; HERE IT WAS RAISED IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO CONFIRM THE REFEREE’S REPORT; THE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to the bank in this foreclosure action, noted that the failure to comply with the notice requirements of Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1304 can be raised at any time. Here it was raised in opposition to the bank’s motion to confirm the referee’s report:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to establish that it complied with the requirements of RPAPL 1304. The affidavits of Armenia L. Harrell and La’Shana Farrow, both of whom are officers of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (hereinafter Wells Fargo), the servicing agent of the plaintiff, were insufficient to establish that the plaintiff complied with RPAPL 1304. Both Harrell and Farrow attested that they were familiar with Wells Fargo’s records and record-keeping practices. Farrow averred, inter alia, that the plaintiff complied with RPAPL 1304 by mailing the required notices. The record indicates that the 90-day notices appear to have been mailed by ASC (America’s Servicing Company). However, neither Harrell or Farrow attest that they personally mailed the notices or that they were familiar with the mailing practices and procedures of ASC. Therefore, they failed establish proof of standard office practice and procedures designed to ensure that items are properly addressed and mailed … . Moreover, the plaintiff failed to send individually addressed notices to each borrower; rather, the 90-day notices were jointly addressed to the [defendants]. U.S. Bank N.A. v Krakoff, 2021 NY Slip Op 06209, Second Dept 11-10-21

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy